GOP Courting Homosexual Vote -- A 'Recipe for Disaster'

AgapePress ^ | April 21, 2003 | Bill Fancher and Jody Brown

[Polycarp]

GOP Courting Homosexual Vote -- A 'Recipe for Disaster'

By Bill Fancher and Jody Brown
April 21, 2003

(AgapePress) - When Republican National Committee Chairman Mark Racicot met with homosexual activists recently, it caused a chorus of criticism from the pro-family lobby across the country.

Bob Knight of the Culture and Family Institute says Racicot's address at a Human Rights Campaign meeting in early March is the latest in a series of apparent efforts by the Bush Administration to court the homosexual vote. Knight believes the GOP has been misguided about its pro-family Christian voter base.

"I think there is a view in the White House that somehow Christian conservatives will stay in the GOP camp no matter what they do on the homosexual issue -- and that if they promote homosexuality, that will give them a look of compassion among, say, suburban housewives," he says.

"Somebody is feeding them exactly the wrong advice: to move to the left on homosexual activism."

Knight calls this strategy "a recipe for disaster" and maintains the pro-family Christian voters will not accept this compromise. Saying it will not go unnoticed by conservatives in the GOP, he laments: "Some GOP leaders seem intent on cutting off their right arm in order to reach out with their left."

He suggests Christians start returning contribution requests with a note saying they will contribute only when the GOP changes its pro-homosexual policy.

© 2003 AgapePress all rights reserved.

[Under the Radar]

Well you know, if we're going after the gay vote, we need to learn about their rules of etiquette.

*snicker*

[Under the Radar]

PING! in case you want to do it all over again.

<--- Is going to bed. :^)

[Kuksool]

{And the difference between them and "moderate" Republicans is....? }

Take a look at the lone gay GOP Congresscritter, Rep. Jim Kolbe AZ-05. His ACU rating is 68. He voted in favor of hate crime legislation, the 1994 crime bill with its gun control provisions and opposed the partial-birth abortion ban. Kolbe's high ACU rating is attributed to his support for free trade and social security privatization.

[Polycarp]

And what is so wrong with going to speak at the HRC?

You are confusing preaching the gospel to sinners with making political alliances with sinners where a quid pro quo is to NOT mention the sinfullness of their agenda.

Men have a much more visceral reaction to the homosexual agenda because we realize the cold hard reality of the brutality that is homosexual sex.

Women think its nice that "two men who love each other are allowed to hug and kiss and have warm fuzzy feelings without being discriminated against."

Sorry, but that ain't the reality of homosexuality.

[Jorge]

Republicans need to break the Democrats' constituents' victim mentalities. It's tough, since Democrats are experts at playing victims like violins, but if the Republicans can't start breaking up those blocs it won't be long until the Democrats have enough groups lined up that they no longer need any contested voters to win. Once that happens, the Republic is doomed.

Well said. And worth repeating.

[supercat]

Nonetheless, Ridge was Bush's front runner, and in 1996, Governor Ridge joined other several pro-abortion republican Governors in calling for removal of the pro-life plank from the Republican National Platform.

The pro-life plank, in its current form, should be replaced with one which can appeal to the 90+% of the population which neither accepts the extreme "pro-choice" nor extreme "pro-life" positions.

I've written out a few times what I think the platform should be, but here are the basics:

1. The abortion of viable late-term unborn children is morally reprehensible, and should be forbidden except as defined in (2).
2. If a condition arises in pregnancy where the woman requires medical treatment to prevent a severe likelihood of death, sterility, loss of limb, blindness, or other severe bodily harm substantially beyond that associated with normal pregnancy, the woman shall be allowed to receive such treatment even if it means the probable or certain death of her unborn child. A woman may decide to accept the health risks of foregoing or delaying such treatment in the hopes of delivering a live child, but she shall not be required to put the life of the baby ahead of her own.
3. At present, most Americans do not believe an unimplanted embryo and a near-term fetus are morally equivalent, and would oppose providing the former with all the protections of the latter.
4. For the Republicans to impose any restrictions on abortion or implantation prevention would be not only politically suicidal but also pointless, since any such restrictions would be undone shortly after the next election cycle.
5. The government should restrict abortions in those cases where there is a broad public concensus favoring such restriction, but should hold off on imposing other restrictions unless or until a public concensus forms for restricting them as well.

Right now, many people who could be characterized as generally pro-life feel themselves compelled to vote Democrat out of a belief that if Republicans really get control they'll outlaw nearly all forms of birth control except the "rhythm" method, as well as many types of fertility treatments. Now we here at FR know there's no way the Republicans would do such things, but Democrats have convince people that they--the brave and valiant Democrats--are the only thing stopping the Republicans from sending women back to the Dark Ages.

My point with the proposed platform up above is to pre-empt and counteract such lies and fears, while setting themselves up to "ratchet up" protections for the unborn. After all, if a fetus is considered a baby after 36 weeks, it becomes harder to dehumanize a 35-week fetus. Amd so public opinions will shift to allow protection of 32-week fetuses. And from there, 28, and so on.

I know there are some who think the party platform should hold the absolute rock-solid pro-life view. I would agree that's a noble ideal, but to me it runs contrary to the purpose of the party platform.

To be, the purpose of the party platform is to have a group of statements that party members can stand fully behind without equivocation. Any and all party members who stand fully behind the platform will defend each other as they defend it. It is thus important that the platform have broad, unequivocal support.

The present platform, frankly, doesn't.

[Jorge]

"If the GOP were to embrace the gay male population what would it get? To try to get the votes of 0.1% of the population, the GOP must first stick the gay agenda thumb in the eye of 80% of their constituents."

Good summary. Sure wish the GOP could figure out this simple equation.

It's a phoney equation based on false premises.

Maybe gays don't make up 10% of the population as some claim but 0.1% is a ridiculously low figure.

And when you add to this bisexuals, those who have experimented at some time with homosexuality, those who have friends of family members who happen to be gay, and those who just plain are liberal in their sexual ideals and don't want anti-gay zealots coming after them next.....they idea that the GOP would be offending 80% of their constituents is just plain ridiculous.

[Huber]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Gay-rights groups, fuming over Sen. Rick Santorum's comparison of homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery, urged Republican leaders Monday to consider removing the Pennsylvania lawmaker from the GOP Senate leadership.

Do groups practicing these other behaviors also have lobbyists?

Can someone help me understand the fundamental difference among the behaviors if they are all between consenting adults, and why this comment would cause Gay-rights groups to fume?

[FirstTomato]

Abortion is wrong. And our society was a lot more sane and kind and moral before it was legal.

The radical feminist left pushed abortion into legality by using big lies about the number of women who died through illegal abortions. In short, they hoodwinked us.

[HumanaeVitae]

"homophobe"

I'm not a homophobe. I'm a heterophile.

[alwaysconservative]

You are confusing preaching the gospel to sinners with making political alliances with sinners where a quid pro quo is to NOT mention the sinfullness of their agenda.

Sorry, I wasn't aware that you had to be sinless to understand the Republican message, or that we have to march lock-step on every issue like those leftist drones. Maybe we should also kick out of the party all thieves, adulterers, killers, haters, coveters, people who bear false witness, who don't observe the Sabbath, and generally who don't live the way we think they should.

Let's post the message in large letters over the door of the tent: "No sinners need apply!" I wonder how many people would be left then to speak out with any strength against infantcide. Jesus took His message to prostitutes, tax collectors, and adulteresses. He opened His arms to all. He told us that He is present in the naked, the suffering, the hungry, and the imprisoned.

And I believe my party was born in the battle for the freedom of the oppressed (slaves), and it is ever a reminder that we are supposed to include even those who are different from us, because liberty and dignity are not exclusive to whites or heterosexuals, and politicians don't become "tainted" just by talking to groups who live a different life than they do.

[alwaysconservative]

Very well-reasoned reply. I applaud you for keeping your eyes on the ultimate goals of ending abortion, but doing so in a sensible manner that removes the incentive for many to vote Democrat.

[alwaysconservative]

So, do you support Dick Cheney as VP? Don't forget, he has an openly gay daughter, and both have refused to allow her sexual orientation to be politicized. Somehow, I can't think that this overly bothered that supposed "80%" of the family values community to have a parent of a gay child (who, BTW, does NOT condemn her) as veep. Or were you one of the people who was voting against Bush in 2000 because of that very issue?

[man of Yosemite]

You're right about that. The democratic government here in California has just about buried this state in a deficit of over 35 billion dollars. Even now, they're doing little to stop the spending. The deficit here is more than all the other states combined. If you want to know what will happen to America if the left gains control, just look at our state. We are in a mess! Stop trying to make friends and buy votes, the costs are staggering.

[Plutarch]

Maybe gays don't make up 10% of the population as some claim but 0.1% is a ridiculously low figure.

Nobody here claimed gays were 0.1% of the population. The paragraph in context is below:

Racicot can't be trying to get lesbian votes, which have got to be 99% Democrat, and forever will be. That leaves gay men, which constitute roughly 2% of the male population. If the GOP were to embrace the gay male population what would it get? Maybe changing 10%, going from 90% to 80% Democrat. To try to get the votes of 0.1% of the population, the GOP must first stick the gay agenda thumb in the eye of 80% of their constituents.

The claim is that male homosexuals are 2% of males, and thus 1% of the population; of these, the best that could be expected would be to change 10%, which works out to 0.1%.

...they [sic]idea that the GOP would be offending 80% of their constituents is just plain ridiculous.

Gay marriage, gays in the military, forcing the Scouts to accept homosexual Scoutmasters is opposed by nearly 80% of the general voting population. It is far from ridiculous to figure that 80% of Republicans oppose these measures.

[Jorge]

"Maybe gays don't make up 10% of the population as some claim but 0.1% is a ridiculously low figure."

Nobody here claimed gays were 0.1% of the population. The paragraph in context is below:

Go back and read the post I was responding to again.
It didn't include any of the convoluted rationale and number crunching nonsense from the paragraph you quote. It presented the gay male population at 0.1%. It isn't my job to correct another's poster's arguments before I respond to them.

"...the idea that the GOP would be offending 80% of their constituents is just plain ridiculous."

Gay marriage, gays in the military, forcing the Scouts to accept homosexual Scoutmasters is opposed by nearly 80% of the general voting population. It is far from ridiculous to figure that 80% of Republicans oppose these measures.

Funny, Racicot didn't bring up any of these issues nor did he claim to be promoting them...but simply wanted to open up a dialogue with gays, many of which happen to agree with conservatives on other important issues.

Once again, you choose to add your own words to other's statements to promote your own points. Not very convincing.

[WFTR]

And Republicans could suggest that lower taxes are good for gays too, especially since their higher incomes put them in a higher tax bracket.

Unfortunately, this statement really isn't true. Most of the tax cuts that the current GOP has supported are "targeted" tax cuts. What "targeted" really means is that they discriminate against anyone who doesn't fit the favored categories of the politically correct. These tax cuts are good for couples where both partners work because they were the only ones paying the "marriage penalty." Unfortunately, these tax cuts do nothing for couples that make the sacrifices that allow a wife not to have a job outside the home. If anything, single-income families will be hurt when tax rates have to be raised to pay for too much government spending. Likewise, people who are single and don't have children receive no benefit from most of the favored changes in the tax code. My taxes probably wouldn't be any higher if a Democrat were in the White House. If the party wanted to benefit those of us who are single, they would reduce tax rates and most importantly cut government spending. Those changes in policy would help the homosexuals as well as those of us who are single heterosexuals.

I don't have a problem with the party taking some time to listen to the homosexuals. If there is common ground that we can reach without compromising our principles, then we should emphasize that common ground. At this point, I'm not that worried about this meeting. However, the party would be making a big mistake in taking another action that would demoralize the base on the hope of gaining just a little ground with groups that will never really support Republicans anyway.

Diversity Is Not Our Strength
Bill

[Munson]

The two party system is a diservice for all americans. Id like to see a Pat Buchannon fiscal left-social right party and a social left-fiscal right party. I believe that most of the hard right would like to have anyone who doesnt toe the line to leave the Republican Party, but our two parties are broad colliations.

Inclusion wins, and if anyone doesnt like that there is always the Consitution Party for those who like their Christianity and government without compromise.


However Democrats dont like my views on firearms, taxation and support on restrictions on abortion. While Republicans dont like my views on whatever actions you do such as who you sleep with or what drugs you take is your right, not government to regulate.

[TaxRelief]

Gay marriage, gays in the military, forcing the Scouts to accept homosexual Scoutmasters is opposed by nearly 80% of the general voting population. It is far from ridiculous to figure that 80% of Republicans oppose these measures.

I was convinced. Still am.